Podcast: God Squad: Love thy neighbor. No exceptions?



Illustration including silhoutes of people at a podium with the US Capitol building centered
Campaign finance is where powerful interests intersect with government. The money spent does not just influence elections, it can also shape policies affecting society as a whole.
In terms of money flowing through the campaign-finance system, political action committees (PACs) direct nearly three times as much money as candidates running for reelection or office. That concentration of money gives PACs considerable potential influence over which candidates reach—and remain in—office.
In terms of spending, candidates for office paid out$2 billion, while PACs reported $6.5 billion in disbursements—3.22 times as much. On the fundraising side, super PACs and hybrid PACs raised roughly twice what congressional candidates raised. Candidates face stricter limits on how much donors can give while super PACs can raise unlimited sums to either support or oppose candidates.
In many cases, party leaders decide where the cash flows. ActBlue and WinRed are the two dominant political fundraising platforms for the two parties. While ActBlue acts independently, WinRed is tightly controlled by the GOP. Also, both parties have leadership PAC funds in the House and Senate.
Setting aside those party-related PACs, the remaining leading PACs are focused on promoting cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and Israel.
In terms of money flowing through the campaign-finance system, political action committees (PACs) are three times more active than candidates running for reelection or office. That is concentrated political power that leaves many congressional candidates running for reelection or office dependent on PAC support.
The one thing that advocates for cryptocurrency, AI, and the state of Israel have in common is engagement in the 2026 midterm elections. To a lesser extent, pro-climate and environmental concerns are also active, with $18.7 million held by LCV Victory Fund, a super PAC.
Fairshake is a pro-crypto super PAC with more than $108 million in cash on hand as of August. Its top contributors include Digital Currency Group, Ben Horowitz, Marc Andreessen, Ripple Labs, Coinbase and Universal Navigation.
Fairshake announced Monday that it would support 32 House candidates—19 Republicans and 13 Democrats—according to the Associated Press. The PAC is giving $1 million to each of the following Democratic candidates: Reps. Janelle Bynum of Oregon, Steven Horsford of Nevada and Derek Tran of California. It is sending the same amounts to Republican Reps. French Hill of Arkansas, Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, and Bill Huizenga of Michigan.
"Fairshake has always been and always will be an issue-focused organization. We back pro-crypto candidates who support American innovation in both parties,” said Geoff Vetter, a spokesman for the PAC.
But in Ohio, where the Senate race is one of the seven most contested, Fairshake is going all-in for the Republican. It is spending nearly $30 million in an effort to defeat Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown’s bid against Republican incumbent Sen. Jon Husted. The same industry helped Republican Bernie Moreno, a former tech executive, win Ohio’s Senate seat in 2024 over Brown. As senator, Moreno has sponsored legislation, S. 1492, promoting the development of blockchain technology.
The Fairshake PAC transfers some of its funds to other super PACs, such as Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress, backing the crypto industry. Much of its spending goes to research, media and social media monitoring, legal fees, and strategy consulting.
The industry is pushing for legislation to establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets. To date, a House-passed bill called the CLARITY Act is unable to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate.
Next to crypto spending, the pro-Israel United Democracy Project is the lead issue-oriented PAC in the 2026 elections. So far, it’s been hit-or-miss for the super PAC.
UDP is flush with $76 million in cash. This year, it supported Rep. Wesley Bell, in a Democratic primary rematch against Cori Bush. It poured $5.7 million into the Maryland Democratic primary campaign of Adrian Boafa, helping him win to fill the seat of retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer, a longtime Democratic supporter of AIPAC and the Israeli state.
It spent nearly $5 million in support of Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, ultimately losing the Democratic primary to Rep. Danny Davis.
It took part in record spending in Kentucky’s 4th District primary to defeat Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who rejects foreign lobbying and fought to get the Justice Department’s records on Jeffrey Epstein released. On that election, UDP put $374,000 into Ed Gallrein’s campaign and poured another $3.6 million in negative ads against Massie.
The super PAC had less success in the Michigan Senate primary, where it spent over $30 million backing Rep. Haley Stevens over Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens’ campaign took in some $60 million in PAC funding. But El-Sayed, an epidemiologist, ultimately won in a close race. In an interview with Face the Nation, Stevens was unapologetic about her funding but said the system needs to change “to end dark money.”
Some of the most consequential political issues have to do with the supercharged AI industry. The industry’s prospective buildout could affect everything from consumer energy and water bills to data-center construction and the technological competition with China.
Follow PoliticsProponents argue that productivity through AI is the answer to the national debt, while skeptics argue that unregulated growth endangers jobs, clean water, and even humanity itself.
So, it is no surprise that AI advocates are pouring millions of dollars into the election. Interest in AI among lobbyists in Washington D.C. has skyrocketed over the past few years. OpenSecrets counted the number of times lobbyists included AI in their filing reports. The figure jumped from 702 times in 2022 to 3,530 in 2025. Furthermore, those lobbyists represented 774 organizations, including many in the defense industry, with interest in AI.
In terms of campaign spending, some AI creators and investors are donating directly to candidates. Others are influencing the election through PACs, subsidiary PACs, and through LLC vendors.
Check Voting InfoThe largest AI-themed super PAC is called Leading the Future. Notably, it is redistributing much of its money to other PACs opposing AI regulations, such as Think Big and American Mission. Top donors include OpenAI President Greg Brockman and his wife Anna Brockman, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, A16Z Capital Management LLC, and Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, co-founders of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
The billions flowing through PACs do not necessarily determine how Americans will vote. But following the money shows which industries and interest groups believe the stakes are high enough to spend heavily trying to shape the next Congress. In 2026, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and U.S. policy toward Israel are among the clearest examples.
Crypto, AI, and Israel All Spending Big to Influence U.S. Elections was first published by Global Economic Report and is republished with permission.
Patti Mohr is a writer and editor-at-large.

Your vote counts beyond the top of the ballot. Why local and state races matter, and how New Americans are shaping them.
Americans worried about the health of our democracy tend to look to Washington. But strengthening democracy is not only about what happens in Congress. It is also about who sits in our city halls and school board meetings, and whether the people making decisions at every level of government reflect the communities they serve.
This fall, we have an opportunity to help shape that government. Yet many of us will only pay attention to the race at the top of the ballot and barely notice the rest.
That is a missed opportunity. If we want a more representative democracy, we have to build it up and down the ballot.
Some of these offices may be less familiar, but their impact is significant. The leaders elected to these positions make decisions about our schools, housing, transportation, public safety, and countless issues that shape our everyday lives. It matters who sits at those tables.
At New American Leaders, the nonpartisan nonprofit I lead, we prepare first- and second-generation Americans to participate in civic life, run for office and govern effectively. Our work is grounded in a simple idea: The people making decisions on behalf of our communities should understand and reflect the people who live in them. We are proud of alumni like Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Michigan State Senator Stephanie Chang, and State Senator Kristin Gonzalez. We're equally energized by the work of alumni serving in local posts.
In Detroit, Council Member Gabriela Santiago-Romero helped develop a down-payment assistance program designed to help more than 1,000 Detroiters become first-time homeowners.
In Nevada, Aaron Bautista, a special education teacher elected to the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents, has focused on higher-education accessibility and affordability and helping current educators pursue further education.
And in Georgia, DeKalb County School Board member Awet Eyasu has brought the perspective of an immigrant to decisions affecting one of the state's largest school districts.
This is all important work happening within our communities. And it's being carried out by New Americans.
Nearly 1 in 10 eligible voters in the United States is a naturalized citizen. That's around 23.8 million people, roughly the entire population of Florida. Our communities are changing, and it's past time our institutions reflect those changes.
There are encouraging signs. Research from New American Leaders Action Fund (NALAF), our affiliated 501(c)(4) organization, identified 419 first- and second-generation Americans serving in 43 state legislatures in 2026, nearly 16 percent more than in 2024. And, despite anti-immigrant rhetoric, over 1,300 New Americans ran for office this cycle according to NALAF's New American Candidate Database.
Yet New Americans still account for only 5.67 percent of state legislators nationwide.
We need more diverse candidates to raise their hands for public leadership at all levels. And, when they do, we all need to show up and vote.
I know voting can feel inadequate in the face of the affordability crisis, attacks against women's rights, and surges in xenophobia. It can feel even more daunting against the backdrop of political polarization and declining trust in our democracy. A single ballot will not solve those problems.
But thousands of ballots and everyday decisions about who governs our communities collectively determine what our government looks like, and what changes we'll begin to see. When we cast our vote for positions up and down the ballot, we affirm the kind of future we want.
So take time to learn what positions are on your ballot. Discover your potential representatives and decide whether they are equipped to address the needs of your diverse community.
If we want a democracy that reflects America, we have to build it up and down the ballot.
About Ghida Dagher: Ghida Dagher is President and CEO of New American Leaders and New American Leaders Action Fund. When she was nine, Ghida's family arrived from Lebanon and Sierra Leone seeking asylum. This immigrant experience and her real-world understanding of struggle and opportunity have shaped her leadership. She recently served as Director of Appointments for Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, where she oversaw the appointments to the state's 350 boards and commissions, as well as judicial and senior administrative appointments. Previously, Ghida was Director of Government Partnerships & Community Affairs at United Way for Southeastern Michigan and led initiatives on immigrant rights and civil liberties at the National Network for Arab American Communities at ACCESS. Ghida has served as a strategist on local, state, and national issue-based and candidate-based campaigns. She is a proud alumna of NAL's Ready to Lead training and has served as a NAL trainer for several years.
Ghida Dagher is president and CEO of New American Leaders

In the final weeks before Election Day, voters have been pressing candidates on the economy, health care, and foreign policy. But a representative's job goes well beyond the votes they cast and the questions they ask in committee. When a veteran's disability claim stalls, a retiree's Social Security payment stops without explanation, or a family is days from an international trip with no passport, the last-ditch call often goes to a congressional office. The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and legislative casework is part of how Congressional offices resolve those grievances today.
That work has deep historical roots in our politics, and is one of the few things that every single Member of Congress has in common, from both sides of the aisle. But casework is a tradition, not a requirement, so every office handles it differently.
That makes casework a fair question for anyone asking for the job. The Member may not take the calls, but they decide how many staff work on casework, how casework trends make their way into policy, and how seriously the office takes this work.
Here are five questions that constituents can raise at a town hall and local journalists can add to a candidate questionnaire or debate.
That last question is not hypothetical. On Jan. 3, dozens of congressional offices will close and dozens more will open. Constituents waiting on a benefits decision or a visa will be caught in the handoff, and how well they are served depends on commitments the winners make now.
Every candidate promises to fight for the people they represent. Casework is where that promise gets tested, one person at a time. Before you cast your ballot, ask them how they plan to keep it.
Anne Meeker is Executive Director of the Constituent Service Institute and a 2026–27 policy fellow at the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation at Harvard Kennedy School. She previously served as managing director at POPVOX Foundation, and led casework for a congressional office.
A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.
In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.
A demagogue gains support by exploiting fear, grievance and prejudice, portraying himself as the people’s indispensable champion against threatening enemies and institutions. Trump offered perhaps his clearest expression of that idea when he declared, “I Alone Can Fix It.”
We should have paid closer attention to the word alone.
The warning signs were not hidden. Trump portrayed immigrants as dangerous, said they were “poisoning the blood of our country,” labeled political opponents the “enemy from within” and told supporters, “I am your retribution.” Together, these statements reveal the pattern of demagoguery: magnify fear, identify enemies, exploit grievance and present one leader as the people’s indispensable protector.
Yet Americans returned him to the White House.
The Framers did not know Trump. But they understood the archetype: the ambitious leader who exploits division, cultivates personal loyalty and seeks greater power. They did not write the Constitution assuming every president would be virtuous. They designed it for the possibility that one would not be.
Their answer was not trust in the president. Their answer was divided power.
James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that instability, injustice and confusion had been “mortal diseases” of popular governments. In Federalist No. 51, he warned against the “gradual concentration” of power and wrote that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
The Framers gave Congress legislative, spending, oversight and impeachment powers, established an independent judiciary and protected a free press capable of scrutinizing government. These guardrails were intended to prevent the concentration and abuse of presidential power, keep public office a public trust and ensure that no president could place himself above the law.
The genius of the system was not that it guaranteed a demagogue would never reach the White House. It was that the Republic might survive if one did.
Those guardrails have now been tested.
Impeachment was designed as an extraordinary remedy for serious abuses of public trust. Trump was impeached twice and acquitted twice by the Senate. The proceedings exposed a vulnerability: impeachment cannot restrain presidential power when partisan loyalty overwhelms independent constitutional judgment.
The Constitution’s emoluments provisions reflected concern that financial benefit and foreign influence could compromise public power. Trump’s continuing business interests raise a larger question: Can the presidency remain a public trust when governmental authority and private financial interests repeatedly occupy the same space?
The scale is extraordinary. A conservative accounting by The New Yorker journalist David Kirkpatrick estimated that Trump and his immediate family made nearly $4 billion by leveraging his presidency during roughly the first year of his second term. Presidential power intertwined with private enrichment on that scale demands scrutiny.
Here again, the guardrail question is unavoidable: Are constitutional guardrails adequately restraining the collision of public power and private gain?
Yet financial integrity is only one test. The constitutional guardrail under greatest strain may be the most fundamental of all: separation of powers.
Congress was never intended to become a president’s supporting cast. The Framers expected congressional ambition to counter presidential ambition. Yet when legislators fear presidential retaliation, surrender institutional authority or place partisan allegiance above constitutional responsibility, that counterweight weakens.
A check that refuses to check is little protection at all.
The judiciary is another essential guardrail, and here the answer is complicated. Courts have restrained some administration actions, but court orders have also faced serious compliance disputes. In April 2025, a federal district court found probable cause that the administration had willfully failed to comply with one of its orders.
The Supreme Court’s record is also mixed. In June 2026, it overturned roughly nine decades of precedent protecting Federal Trade Commission commissioners from at-will presidential removal, expanding presidential control over independent executive agencies while preserving separate protections for Federal Reserve governors.
The judiciary has not collapsed as a guardrail. But neither has it consistently restrained the concentration of executive power.
Taken together, the record offers an uncomfortable answer: constitutional guardrails do not hold simply because they exist. Some have worked. Others have bent, weakened or failed at consequential moments. All depend upon people willing to exercise constitutional power with independence, courage and fidelity.
Institutions alone cannot save a Republic. People operate them.
Representatives vote. Judges rule. Public officials decide whether their oath means fidelity to the Constitution or loyalty to a president. Journalists scrutinize power. Citizens decide whom to entrust with it.
Constitutional fidelity must become the standard.
The people possess a guardrail of their own: the power to replace leaders who refuse to defend the constitutional order.
Voting is more than a partisan exercise. Examine who defended constitutional authority and who surrendered it. Who demanded accountability and who excused misconduct. Who protected independent institutions and who placed personal loyalty above an oath.
Do not ask only what party a candidate represents. Ask what constitutional principles that candidate will defend when defending them becomes politically costly.
Americans are exhausted. But exhaustion cannot become surrender.
Do not follow the noise. Follow the power.
Read the legislation. Examine the votes. Follow the money. Question representatives. Speak out. Petition government. Demonstrate peacefully. Vote.
When those entrusted with constitutional power refuse to use it, the people must use theirs.
And when elected leaders will not defend the constitutional order?
Replace them.
So, will the guardrails hold?
Only if we make them hold.
The Constitution cannot supply courage, cast our votes or compel allegiance to constitutional principle over allegiance to a president.
That responsibility is ours.
The Framers gave us a Republic capable of surviving a demagogue. They left keeping it to us.
Now we must keep it.
_____________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and former principal who spent her career advancing civic responsibility, equity, and public engagement. She writes about democracy, ethical leadership, and the values that strengthen American communities.